lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:10:01 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <>
To:	Ingo Molnar <>
Cc:	Peter Anvin <>, Jan Beulich <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Tony Jones <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] x86: also CFI-annotate certain inline asm()s

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Linus Torvalds
<> wrote:
> So no. A very strong NACK. The code was too ugly to live, there is no good
> stated reason for it, and the only reason I can even remotely imagine is
> wrong and complete crap anyway (ie making the CFI annotations a correctness
> issue by introducing other infrastructure that depends on it always being
> right).

Btw, the sane thing to do is to make your infrastructure just say "If
my frame walker hits a push/pop without CFI information, I'll just add
it myself".

Yes, that involved having to actuall ylook at the instruction. Tough
shit. Just do it right. There aren't that many push/pop patterns.
Don't make the kernel more fragile by introducing these kinds of hacky

Improve the debugger, don't make kernel code worse because your
out-of-tree debugging infrastructure is too broken to live.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists